Entering a Web

[werk]

i agree but thats the difference between doing something stupid and falling pray to a good tactic. btw- as a tactic i'd leave him stuck and use a bow to give him a porkipine effect
Z

Yeah, lighting the web on fire, after you pushed someone only 5' in, is just going to singe and free them...kinda waste of time. If he had so few hit points as to be killed by the round of burning, you should have killed him instead of bullrushing in the first place.

Push him in, beat him to death, then burn the evidence. Or push him in and commence tripping.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm not particularly interested in abstract rules interpretations that hinge on a technicality.

If you're not interested in the discussion, then just leave. You seem to be interested enough to impune my arguments without substantiation though.

Is it your contention, then, that there can be no spells that have an area of effect that would allow a saving throw (for those in the area at the time of casting) to avoid one condition, but require a check of some type to avoid a second condition (for those that are in the area after the time of casting)?

Anything is possible if the spell description defines it as such.

My contention is not that you automatically succeed at the saving throw. My contention is that the spell involves 2 conditions, 1 that requires a save at the time of casting, and 1 that requires a check after the time of casting. Those that enter the area after the spell has been cast are not subject to condition 1, but are subject to condition 2.

Okay, let's pick apart the spell. The first sentence that I see that's important is: "Creatures caught within a web become entangled among the gluey fibers." I think a valid rephrasing of this is: "Creatures subject to the web become entangled among the gluey fibers." Agreed? Thus, at a minimum, anyone within the web is entangled.

Then there's the main paragraph we're concerned with, as duplicated below (my emphasis, to be discussed later).

Anyone in the effect’s area when the spell is cast must make a Reflex save. If this save succeeds, the creature is entangled, but not prevented from moving, though moving is more difficult than normal for being entangled (see below). If the save fails, the creature is entangled and can’t move from its space, but can break loose by spending 1 round and making a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 25 Escape Artist check. Once loose (either by making the initial Reflex save or a later Strength check or Escape Artist check), a creature remains entangled, but may move through the web very slowly. Each round devoted to moving allows the creature to make a new Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check result exceeds 10.

The two underlined sentences are what you claim applies when someone enters a web. The bolded part of those sentences are why I'm saying that that interpretation means those people automatically make their save. These bolded parts have as much weight as the phrase "when the spell is cast", and IMO even less weight when considering the rule I quoted on "being subject to".

In other words, if you want to just impose the entangled condition, that's fine. I can fully accept that. But, if you want to impose the entangled condition plus the special movement rules, you'd have to ignore the phrases "If this save succeeds" and "Once loose".

Hopefully, I've made my point crystal clear and it's not just a 'technicality'.

 

[Caliban]

If you're not interested in the discussion, then just leave. You seem to be interested enough to impune my arguments without substantiation though.

I'm sorry you took offense. But your interpretation really doesn't make any sense to me.

Hopefully, I've made my point crystal clear and it's not just a 'technicality'.

Based on your quote, it really looks like a technicality you are hinging your arguement on, at least to me.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm sorry you took offense. But your interpretation really doesn't make any sense to me.

I took no offense, otherwise I might've reported your post.

However, you called my interpretation 'abstract' which I think impunes my arguments (not me though). I can understand you calling it a technicality, but quite frankly all rules are technicalities. That's the definition of a rule, isn't it, when you get down to brass tacks?

Based on your quote, it really looks like a technicality you are hinging your arguement on, at least to me.

I tried to show that both sides have the same "hinge" and further that my interpretation is less of a technicality, if I may use that word.

 

[Nail]

I find it helpful to compare this spell to other spells which allow a save, but remain in place. I'm thinking: Stinking Cloud.

 

[Caliban]

I took no offense, otherwise I might've reported your post.

However, you called my interpretation 'abstract' which I think impunes my arguments (not me though). I can understand you calling it a technicality, but quite frankly all rules are technicalities. That's the definition of a rule, isn't it, when you get down to brass tacks?

Not to me. A technicality is when you use a strained definition or an overly literal use of another rule to go counter to the intent or obvious use of the spell (or feat, or rule).

I'm not trying to be insulting, but that is what it looks like you are doing to me. You are redefining "Anyone in the area of affect when the spell is cast" to mean "the first time you enter the spells area, no matter when the spell was cast". That's what you are hinging your arguement on.

Spells aren't computer programs, and quite often you have to look at what the spell actually does, and interpret the game mechanics in that context.

I tried to show that both sides have the same "hinge" and further that my interpretation is less of a technicality, if I may use that word.

You have failed to convince me of that. Sorry.

 

[KarinsDad]

If you are outside the web when it is cast, obviously you make no save at that point. If you then enter the web (willingly or not), you are "subject to the spell".

For those who disagree with my interpretation, I ask you to define that as clearly and consistently as possible.

Sure. Do not ignore what is written in the spell:

Anyone in the effect’s area when the spell is cast must make a Reflex save.

The spell itself states when the save is appropriate.

You are saying the spell requires a save at another time when the spell explicitly states otherwise.

Creatures become subject to the spell when they enter the area and are no longer subject to it when they leave.

This is true for Web. Any character moving through a Web are subject to the movement rules of moving in a Web until they get out.

They are not subject to the saving throw though. The specific wording of the spell takes precedence over the general "subject to a spell's effect" rule with regard to saving throw.

Do you agree?

 

[Kalshane]

Jumping in on the discussion late, envisioning it in my head, I would go with the interpretation that doesn't require the reflex save. The PC is intentionally trying to move through the area. Much like someone who is not stuck and moving through, they are intentionally avoiding higher concentrations of webbing and just doing their best to make their way through.

The initial save is for when the web springs up out of nowhere around the character. The character has to do try to dodge the fibers as they form to avoid becoming trapped in them. Someone just walking into it doesn't have that problem. The web, unlike entangle, is a static thing. Once cast the webbing doesn't move, it's just there. Hence no need for a save for entering it.

Now, if the PC were somehow flung into the web (via bullrush, being thrown by a large creature, falling into it from above, or even running into it blindly because he couldn't see) then I would require a save because the PC is not moving under his own power or otherwise can't intentionally avoid areas that would get him stuck. I'd probably give a circumstance bonus to the break free check if they failed, though, as hitting the web from the outside isn't going to entangle as much as having strands of webbing actually form around your body.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Not to me. A technicality is when you use a strained definition or an overly literal use of another rule to go counter to the intent or obvious use of the spell (or feat, or rule).

So, now my definition is "strained" and I disagree with the "obvious" use of the spell? Wow, loading up on negatives today, aren't you?

Your interpretation is not obvious. If it were, I would not be arguing against it. Moreover, for your information, I find my interpretation the obvious one. I do see relevance in all three interpretations, however.

I'm not trying to be insulting, but that is what it looks like you are doing to me.

Then you should not use words loaded with negative connotations. I'm used to seeing such comments, though, so I don't take offense. Just take this as constructive criticism of the way you word your rebuttals.

Spells aren't computer programs, and quite often you have to look at what the spell actually does, and interpret the game mechanics in that context.

Okay, let's agree on that. In that context, however, I personally think it's obvious that someone entering the web should be required to make a save because they are subject to it.

Do not ignore what is written in the spell...
You are saying the spell requires a save at another time when the spell explicitly states otherwise.

I have not ignored it and yes I am saying that because it's the best way to interpret "being subject to."

This is true for Web. Any character moving through a Web are subject to the movement rules of moving in a Web until they get out.

Unless a save is rolled, the only movement rules in a Web are due to entanglement. There are no other rules that you can draw upon.

They are not subject to the saving throw though.

If you refuse to require a saving throw, then I think the only interpretation you can have is to merely impose the entangled condition. You cannot use any other movement rules from the spell description. Like I said earlier, that's an acceptable interpretation.

The specific wording of the spell takes precedence over the general "subject to a spell's effect" rule with regard to saving throw.

If this is the case, then you must adopt the entangled condition as the sole effect. The entire main paragraph must be ignored as it pertains to saving throws only.

Do you agree?

Only enough to disagree.

I'm pretty sure you understand my point by now and I have nothing new to add or to convince you. Unless you think you can convince me that the main paragraph does not require a save, I'd say we're at an impasse. I feel confident in my stance both from a rules perspective and from an 'obvious intent' perspective. The middle ground is acceptable as well.

 

[Caliban]

So, now my definition is "strained" and I disagree with the "obvious" use of the spell? Wow, loading up on negatives today, aren't you?

You certainly seem determined to take it that way.

Have a nice day.